Another one of the truths about the war was that it tipped the scale of power to the federal government, creating the snowball rolling downhill that eventually became Obama and our new system of unlawful governance...Obamunism.

Those who cannot see the war for what it was beyond the part that involved slavery don’t seem to understand that they support the thing that Obama possible, and therefore support Obama.

Problem with that theory being, a lot of southern states are closer to DC than say, Vermont. Or California.

Somebody pointed out that many people hadn't ever been more than 100 miles from their homes. Part of it was that a war was a source of excitement, an excuse to travel, to partake of the pomp and glitz and glory of military service. Of course, it wasn't quite so much fun once they got there.

FWIW, War Between the States always struck me as the most neutral term.

Civil War implies war within a nation, whereas the whole point of the war was over whether it was now one or two nations. The term at least implies acceptance of the single-nation idea.

There are also variants of more extreme terminologies. War of Northern Aggression vs. The Great Rebellion.

WBTS is most accurate, IMO, because to a very large extent that’s exactly what it was, especially in the beginning. The Federal and Confederate governments just did not have the machinery in place to run a war of such size, with much of the organization defaulting back to states as a result.

If Union states had just refused to support the war wholeheartedly, it would have quickly petered out.

There was a third nation, Mayland, that seceded from the South. Mayland had no slavery. The people there were brutalized by the North. I have visited some of the caves where the people lived for years hiding from the invading Yankees.

62
posted on 01/11/2014 12:16:24 PM PST
by gitmo
(If your theology doesn't become your biography, what good is it?)

“As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution.”

Robert E. Lee

70
posted on 01/11/2014 12:21:57 PM PST
by rockrr
(Everything is different now...)

Edmund Ruffin, noted Virginian agronomist and secessionist, claimed that he fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. His story has been widely believed, but Lieutenant Henry S. Farley, commanding a battery of two 10 inch siege mortars on James Island fired the first shot at 4:30 A.M. (Detzer 2001, pp. 26971). No attempt was made to return the fire for more than two hours. ... At about 7:00 A.M., Captain Abner Doubleday, the fort's second in command, was given the honor of firing the union's first shot, in defense of the fort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter#CITEREFDetzer2001

Before the chorus of wiki-detractors chimes in, may I point out that they are free to post evidence that wiki is inaccurate in this case?

Always love it when folks point out that Southern secession was nothing more than a second Revolutionary War...with Southern states trying to reclaim the balance of power originally afforded to states.

"The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers."

-- U. S. Grant

73
posted on 01/11/2014 12:26:59 PM PST
by central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

How about “The War of Slavery-Endorsing Democrats against the Republicans, founded and financed by those who believe in the dignity of Human Life”?

(I am well aware there were more issues at stake, and the federalism questions involved...so no need to flame. I just want to re-emphasize the oft forgotten FACT that Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation, and subsidies that result in dependence on government. Democrats are also the party of abortion and welfare—all designed to keep the population SUBSERVIENT to the bureaucracy.)

"Federal Supremacy" really didn't amount to very much for decades or generations after the Civil War.

If you were around at the time, the prospect of the old country falling apart and being replaced by something new, most likely two countries hostile to each other, would be more apparent than anything about who would have the upperhand in a country that might not exist any more.

The war was always about slavery. It is quite disingenuous, IMNVHO, to claim otherwise. Witness the Confederate Constitution.

Pity. Because that's exactly what has damaged the cause of States' Rights ever since. Of course sovereign states may secede from a Union. Unfortunately, the main reason why the South wanted to secede was to preserve ... and perhaps extend ... slavery.

Mention the term "States' Rights" today and you will be called a racist. However, if the federal government fails to live up to its obligations, or intrudes into state matters, what other choice do the people of a sovereign state have? It's either secede, or armed rebellion, which are not the same thing.

Slavery probably could have been ended in a variety of ways, without war, as was done in other countries. E.G., witness the many plans to buy the slaves using bond issues, etc., free them, and send them to other countries. Actually done in a very small way!

78
posted on 01/11/2014 12:31:48 PM PST
by Kenny Bunk
(This GOP is dead. What do we do now?)

Grant wasn’t stupid. Only fools believed people who had willingly joined a union from which the could not with draw. Only fools still believe it today.

Can’t remember exactly how many years it was, but I know some of the northern states had threatened to leave the union some 20 to 40 years earlier. Just liberals, I guess they believed it was OK if the did it, but other people. LOL!

“Why would the use of the term “War Between the States” particularly catch one’s attention when reading about that topic, also known as the Civil War?”

Loosely speaking, maybe because the States in Union created the Federal Government as their agent, not their ruler and the author of the quote:

a. Doesn’t realize this

or

b. Does realize this but also realizes that in the view of those who believe the Fed Gov should be the ruler instead of the agent, the use of the term undermines their belief as it recognizes the place of the states.

87
posted on 01/11/2014 12:36:00 PM PST
by KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)

Much of the commentary about how the Union victory led to the decline and imminent fall of American freedom is based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

The inexorable expansion of the federal government and decline of relative importance of states followed the WBTS (though not for some decades), therefore it was caused by the WBTS.

Let us posit a world in which Africa was missing, and so no Africans had been imported to America. No slavery, no WBTS.

America would still have been settled by Europeans, and eventually probably have broken away from the mother country. Industrialization and its discontents would still have grown up during the later 19th and early 20th centuries, with resultant calls for government action to address those discontents.

In America the movement to do so was called the Progressive movement. But the exact same calls for expansion of central government power occurred in every other country that reached a similar stage in its development. Precise political issues varied by country, but the general trend is clear.

To believe that Lincoln "caused" the growth of federal power is just silly, IMO. He provided a significant precedent for such expansion, but the notion that TR, Wilson, etc. would have been unable to advance their notions without such a precedent is not logical.

Most of the federal growth during the war went away for the next few decades, not starting up again till the Progressives got going. AFAIK, they seldom cited Lincoln or the War as justification for the proposals.

Quite possibly the war and the experience of troubles afterwards, Reconstruction and the like made people more cautious and suspicious of federal power too, maybe why our leftists were less successful for a long time

If that's Maryland, it had slaves. New Jersey was also a slave state. Both remained in the Union, as did of course, Maryland. Delaware was a special case, with few slaves. Lincoln had a plan to buy their slaves into freedom, and use them to colonize part of Nicaragua just to show it could be done. Got turned down.

Further South, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union, but held onto their slaves, past the Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to slaves in the Confederacy.

While this is all interesting history, all of the slave-holding Union States had emancipation plans, held in abeyance until after the war.

96
posted on 01/11/2014 12:48:02 PM PST
by Kenny Bunk
(This GOP is dead. What do we do now?)

“The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom and forebearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for ‘perpetual union’ so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession.” Robert E. Lee - January 23, 1861

97
posted on 01/11/2014 12:48:34 PM PST
by rockrr
(Everything is different now...)

To claim that the CSA had no legal right to secede requires an honest person to admit that the colonies had no legal right to present the Declaration of Independence to the legal ruler of those colonies.

So therefore, that part of the world formerly known as the United States of America, shall thenceforth be known as 'British North America'. Men are to bow and women curtsey to your new Queen, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and now Queen of British North America. If you ever have the opportunity to address Her, you may call her, "Your Majesty" or "Your Grace".

In order to make things easier and more centralised (NOTE: 's' not 'z' which, by the way, is pronounced 'zed' not that horrid 'zee'), and to drain the swamp that Washington, DC has now become, your new Capital (no longer called a Capitol) will be d'Ottawa. Again, to make things easier, you will drop that insipid, "huh?" at the end of sentences and substitute the equally insipid, "eh?" at the end of sentences. OK, eh?

A fair warning to legislators heading to your new Capital d'Ottawa from Washington, especially those from semi-tropical regions like Florida and Hawaii. PLEASE be advised that in the winter, Washington is a tropical paradise compared to d'Ottawa. As a sign of the depth of love and respect by Her Majesty's government for Her new legislative subjects, a planeload of Stanfield's woolen longjohns will be forwarded to Washington. (Those legislators from Montana and North Dakota are exempt, as they should have their own woolies.)

Another note to assist our new legislators. PLEASE learn Franglais to properly fit in. It would be an especially wise idea to memorise various French phrases associated with the Roman Catholic faith, as such sacres assist in communicating with many Quebecois. Also, learning French words associated sex and excrement will help in communicating like a true p'tit gars. Memorising words such as, 'calisse', 'ciboire', 'criss', 'maudit', 'marde', 'osti', 'sacrament', 'tabarnack' and 'viarge' for inclusion in common dialogue will go a long way to increasing one's popularity in parts of Quebec.

One final note for all who have not yet figured this out yet. THIS IS NOT MEANT TO INSULT, MERELY TO BE somewhat HUMOUROUS. Seriously, there is one thing to note about all this. Our Prime Minister actually IS a Christian, unlike the current occupant of the White Hut!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.